Newham Council - misleading 'Help' offered

 

So here we have Mr M's car in a bay without a sign on 1 August 25. That makes it a free parking bay. As it happens Mr M lives in a different road within Newham which is subject to frequent vandalism of its sign and this road, Holbrook Rd, is one where Mr Mustard has fought a dozen PCN none of which have had to be paid.

Mr M thought he would point out by himself the absence of a sign and not trouble Mr Mustard and so he did this on 4 August 25.

On 3 September Newham Council rejected the informal challenge of which the gist is below:

It is specious.

They accept ('noted') that 'one of the nearest time plates was missing'. They didn't notice that this bay in their traffic order is meant to be 25m long (a resident has illegally repainted the bay in order to get access to their yard) nor that the bay only ever had one sign so once that sign is missing there is no sign.

The car was within a cpz but the zone entry signs only set the times for single yellow lines which don't have their own timeplate and they do not set the time for bays, each of which must have its own sign and may have its own type and times.

There is a legal obligation that every bay must have a sign.

Councils have an obligation to erect and maintain signage so that motorists can find out what the rules are.

Looking at the next sign, or the one on the other side of the road is very bad advice. Image 3 consecutive bays from which the signs have been stolen. Bay #1 is a motorcycle bay, bay #2 is a residents only bay, bay #3 is a bay for blue badge holders. Bay 4 is for people paying to park, the sign is of no use in informing motorists in the other 3 bays what the rules are.

At this point Mr Mustard was instructed.

On 30 September 25 a Notice to Owner was sent but didn't arrive.

On 5 November 25 a Charge Certificate was issued and the balance claimed increased from £160 to £240.

This certificate is misleading nonsense. It does not need to contain reasons 1-3 and Newham Council knew that options 2 & 3 did not apply so why include them? All a charge certificate needs to say is that the penalty has been increased by 50%

The council tell you in bold that you are stuffed.

They then go on in the next paragraph about the County Court in an attempt to frighten the recipient still further. They give you no details about the options which will be available at the Order for Recovery stage which include the ability to roll the process back, get a fresh Notice to Owner and then once more have the right to make representations. Newham Council have been selective in only presenting the bad news.

Laughably they rendered the £10 court fee as zero.

The 'strong advice' which the council give is highly selective and largely biased in their favour and it is no part of Newham Council's role to give out advice on a matter in which they have a financial interest.

Mr Mustard gave advice to Mr M that he should await the Order for Recovery but might get another document first as he was aware of the stunts that Newham pull.

Thus it was on 24 November 25 that Newham Council sent a letter purporting to offer help. Here it is: 

What utter tosh. Newham Council not thinking they could help with the cost of living crisis by cancelling the PCN that they should never have issued.

Mr Mustard decided to have a bit of sport and complete the online enquiry form knowing he would write things that Newham Council didn't want to read.

Mr Mustard only had to wait a few days for a response although it was utterly useless.

Mr Mustard was not amused at the refusal to provide any help so given that Newham Council didn't like his first effort he crafted a much longer and harder hitting enquiry:

Did this result in a reasoned and complete response, no of course not, it received the same standard letter saying Mr Mustard couldn't use the enquiry service in this way.

Mr Mustard waited patiently.  He had put the PCN into the too difficult pile and Newham Council decided to burn £10 and register the PCN as a debt at Northampton County Court which is really just a big filing cabinet for PCNs.

It was on 8 January 26 that Mr Mustard checked online and saw that the balance had increased to £250 so the Order for Recovery had been issued. Without waiting to see it Mr Mustard filed a 'witness statement' which declared that the Notice to Owner had not been received. As the statement was in time the 50% surcharge and the £10 fee were both taken off the online balance.

On 9 February 2026 a fresh Notice to Owner was issued.

On 10 February 2026 the formal representations were made online in the following words: 

The council are under a legal duty to sign a bay.

There is no sign alongside the bay.

The motorist was therefore not on notice of the terms of any traffic order. 

The PCN is too vague. It does not state which of the types of bay is concerned, is it a residents bay or a shared use bay. A motorist is entitled to know exactly what they are accused of, not to have to undertake research. 

The council sent a letter on 24 November which not authorised by the 2022 Appeals or General Regulations and is a procedural impropriety. 

The council's behaviour has been wholly unreasonable and vexatious throughout.

The final line was a clear warning that costs would be applied for if the council rejected the representations and an appeal was necessary to the independent adjudicator.

This time some-one with at least half a brain thought about them as they were accepted and the PCN was cancelled. Their thought process was still flawed and the majority of the acceptance letter was utter tosh and churlish.

Mr Mustard wonders if the council will learn anything from this. Once Mr Mustard decides a PCN is wrong he will fight it all the way to the tribunal and if he does that the council will incur the tribunal fee of c.£32. Newham wasted the £10 in this case for the TEC registration, Mr Mustard did warn them.

The problem, and the reason councils do this, is that many unlawful PCNs get paid, often by lease companies (try not to lease, just buy yourself a smaller older car with a straightforward loan if you can) and so there is no stick to balance out the carrot. If councils issue an unlawful PCN they should have to give the amount of the penalty to the recipient. That would make councils think before they shoot.

The end. 

TfL are a disgrace - in the nature of a guest blog

The facts:

I hope you're well. I'm afraid I have another query for you on behalf of my parents. I will try to keep the facts brief but can provide more detail if needed.

- parents have moved house, new owners called this week to say they have some post for them. Parents collected post to find 2 charge certificates from TfL for non payment of PCNs (congestion charge)
- new owners of house state that no previous correspondence has been received (i.e. The Pcns themselves or any reminders)
- charge certificates state payment required in 14 days (i.e. by 8 august) otherwise they will register it as a debt
- I believe a statutory declaration is required (or two) to say that parents did not receive PCNs?
- reason for not paying congestion charge is that vehicle is registered under blue badge discount for my grandmother however the email sent by TfL to ask whether that should be renewed was sent to my grandfather who sadly passed away last year. Therefore email account not checked and discount expired around march this year.
- parents did have a mail redirect initially but this had stopped by the time PCN issued. However new owners are in touch and would / should have told them if they had post
- my dad (registered keeper) did not update DVLA until recently, however he says (I am asking him to double check this) that when he called them (in July) to update his address they told him they already had new address. Not sure how this is possible but perhaps they obtained it via an alternative source..? 

Any chance of success with this do you think? Presume first would have to attempt statutory declaration then if successful, make representations? Out of interest, when log in to TfL site it still seems to allow us to make reps even though supposedly you cannot do this once charge certificate issued.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give us!

Although Mr Mustard wasn't managing the PCNs he keeps an eye on things. One PCN was settled and the other marched forward through the process to the bailiff. He enquired what had happened.

Thanks for your email. Yes - it was a complete nightmare for my parents as you can imagine. TfL are a disgrace - despite my parents sending in the relevant stat dec signed by a solicitor etc, TfL managed to lose it. My parents then got another statutory declaration signed and witnessed etc and followed up with the TEC who confirmed all received and sent to TfL, and that bailiffs would definitely be put on hold. Next thing they know, very unpleasant bailiff at door a few days later. My parents were already in the middle of a major family crisis so had no option but to pay full amount (it was a weekend and nobody from TfL or TEC available of course).  (2 swearing fees of c. £10 would have had to be paid)

My mum called tfl on the Monday and TfL actually admitted they had failed to correctly notify bailiffs and agreed to cancel ticket. Now my parents are waiting for refund - who knows if it will ever materialise.

Thank you for keeping track of this - I have to say that I despair at organisations like TfL and others whose disorganisation and ruthlessness causes innocent people an extraordinary amount of stress and upset.

Please keep up your good work in helping people to fight back!

The problem is that parking departments automate as much of the process as they can simply because of the volume they deal with. TfL issue around 500,000 PCNs each year. Thus the personal input which would stop most stupid process errors just isn't built into the system and that is wrong.

The parents are out of pocket, they are due an apology for the error in instructing the bailiffs and should be compensated for the worry but that simply doesn't happen.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The TEC & Hackney Council - doubly unhelpful

Within the regulations which govern penalty charge notice processing there is a procedure which rewinds the process so that motorists do not lose out if a document goes missing in the mail. In a recent case Mr Mustard's client, let us call him Ben, did not receive the Notice to Owner and he knew this as after the PCN issued to the vehicle the first document he received in the post was the Charge Certificate.

Mr Mustard therefore drew up a witness statement for his client to sign, a form TE9, and submitted it to the TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre). He kept an eye on the balance on the Hackney Council computer and for weeks it was stubbornly stuck at £195, rather than having reverted to £130, and a fresh Notice to Owner did not arrive.

Sometimes things go wrong so Mr Mustard emailed the TEC so that they could tell him if they had processed the form and on what date.

This was the thoroughly unhelpful answer he received.

We have been unable to process your request for information on the above Penalty Charge Number.

We would advise you to contact the London Borough of Hackney to ask for the information you require.

Very odd as the standard acknowledgement from the TEC contains the following line:

The current status of the Penalty Charge (e.g. has my document been processed?) - Within 10 working days.

The TEC are able to answer, when they say they are 'unable' to do so. They mean, of course, unwilling, for some unknown reason.

Oh well, thought Mr Mustard, time to ask Hackney Council what they did about the revoking order that the TEC should have issued in response to an in time witness statement (without knowing if they had actually processed it or not) so an email was sent to Hackney Council to ask them.

The response was as unhelpful as the one from the TEC and left the motorist completely in the dark and unable to take any steps & denied him his rights to fight the PCN:

Thank you for your e-mail. Please note that the form should be sent to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and you would need to direct any enquiries regarding an update to a submitted form directly to themselves.

The action plan to tackle this which Mr Mustard decided upon was to submit a Subject Access Request to Hackney Council which would force them to provide the requested information and also to send a complaint to both bodies with copies of the two useless responses and ask them to agree who would respond.

Mr Mustard had drafted the requests and the complaint, a week after Hackney's useless response, when he checked their website and found they had closed the PCN so he had reduced the balance from £195 to £130 to £zero. How nice.

What this told him was:

1. The TEC had processed the witness statement (they could have replied to that effect in 2 minutes).

2. Hackney Council had not issued a fresh PCN as soon as they were able to (although they were still in time).

3. The request for information caused Hackney Council to look at the file and decide to close it (which they should have told the motorist who clearly wanted to know).

All is well that ends well but this has been a right palaver that less experienced PCN fighters would have really struggled with.

Enforcement authorities and Courts have huge powers. They really need to wield them in a professional manner and give out vital information promptly when requested. (All authorities, please take note.)

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet Council parking are getting better - at apologising

A good apology is a thing of beauty and Barnet are getting better at them but then they do have to send Mr Mustard quite a few.

Mr Mustard checks the on line balance of every PCN he handles every 10 days or so. When he then sees a balance increase by £8 he knows that, in theory, an Order for Recovery has been issued. It turned out that Barnet had been increasing the balance when they asked the Court to approve the debt registration rather than when the Court responded. He is told that this was due to human error but Mr Mustard thinks it was the way the system was set up.

The event which confirmed that the horse was before the cart was when Mr Mustard, having seen a balance increase by £8, submitted a witness statement in order to get a debt registration cancelled and the TEC (the relevant part of the Court) told him that the PCN had not been registered as a debt. That was a procedural impropriety (blunder) on the part of the council.

You can keep an eye on your Barnet PCN balance here

Note that the fault was down to NSL who are meant to be PCN processing experts. Mr Mustard wouldn't want to deal with amateurs if this is what experts are like. Mr Mustard has been described as a professional lay representative which is, of course, an oxymoron. It is harder to get your contractors to do the right thing than manage your own staff doing it as they are within your sight. This is one of the prices you pay for outsourcing, loss of control.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Enfield Council in time travel trouble.

Mr Mustard complained about the use of the non-statutory pre-debt reminder to Enfield Council on 26 January. He had previously complained about it in November and was told that all his points were valid and the reminder would be changed. The revised version was so similar that Mr Mustard didn't notice the subtle differences, he having expected radical change & possibly withdrawal of the use of the reminder as Haringey Council decided at about the time that Mr Mustard complained to them.

This is what Mr Mustard wrote on 26 January:

Dear Mr Parking Manager

Nothing has yet changed with the pre-debt reminder?

I don't think the contravention description is substantially complaint (sic) as looking at the meter on google streetmap it looks to have the red dash sticker on it. That means that payment could have been made by phone, which is not part of the alleged contravention. Surely this should have been a code 11, parked without payment of the parking charge and your PCN is unsustainable?

In the circumstances you could please cancel EF00123456.

Many thanks

Mr Mustard

There then followed a game of email ping pong which culminated in Mr Mustard's complaint being sent from parking to the complaints department from where it will end up with the Ombudsman who, his recent report Fairer Fines shows, is currently concerned about the fair treatment of motorists.

As there had been a pre-debt reminder Mr Mustard knew that a charge certificate had been issued. His client had not received the Notice to Owner and was awaiting the Order for Recovery so that the process could be rewound to the Notice to Owner stage.

On 27 January Mr Mustard's client sent him a copy of the Order for Recovery. Mr Mustard duly submitted his client's witness statement to the TEC the very same day.

On 9 February the council, as they were perfectly entitled to do, issued a fresh Notice to Owner.

On 15 February Mr Mustard's client sent him a copy of the fresh Notice to Owner and on the same day Mr Mustard went on-line to the Enfield Council computer and made representations that the PCN had been issued for the wrong contravention code.

Imagine Mr Mustard's surprise when he received a Notice of Rejection on 16 February which had been written on 14 February and which contained the following:

The order set out in the legislation is simple, it goes like this:

1 - Notice to Owner

2 - Representations against the Notice to Owner

3 - Notice of Rejection (or Acceptance) of the Representations

4 - Appeal to the tribunal (done!)

Enfield Council have decided to make Mr Mustard's email of 26 January which pre-dated the Notice to Owner of 9 February into a document which was issued 2 weeks later after the Notice to Owner.

In the four years that Mr Mustard has been fighting PCN he has never seen such a blatant procedural impropriety. They are defined as a failure to follow Parking Regulations but you could simply think of them as a council blunder.

He know has an Appeal pending which technically he shouldn't have but which he has no doubt will be allowed if it reaches a hearing which it probably won't as Mr Mustard will be filing a further complaint with Enfield Council. Mr Mustard will be making a claim for costs, which is very rare for him, as the council have been wholly unreasonable.

Mr Mustard doesn't suppose, or rather hope, that Enfield Council are playing guessing games about the representations that ordinary members of the public intend to make on a future date. If they are though, the public don't know the correct procedure like Mr Mustard does.

What the council's actions do disclose though is an indecent haste to reject Representations not yet made by Mr Mustard.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Westminster wake-up call

An adjudicator decides a case with an 18 month delay.

Knowing that delays are fatal to PCN Mr Mustard was somewhat surprised when an occasional PCN client (one who deals with the routine himself and just consults Mr Mustard on the tough cases) said he had been chased by Zinc Credit management for a debt of £180 from November 2010. Actually the letter that Zinc sent wasn't very helpful as it only quoted Westminster City Council and the vehicle registration so further information had to be sought.

Go make yourself a cup of tea, the chronology is a long one.

---

26 November 2010 at 15:45 a van was hired out by Mr Mustard's client until 1 December 10 to a small removals company of which the proprietor has moved back to South Africa.

At 21:39 on 26 November 2010 the van is found with all 4 wheels on a (very wide but no excuse) pavement presumably to make loading easier. A £120 PCN is placed on the screen.

On 4 January 2011 a Notice to Owner was sent. The hire company will, as they always do, have provided a copy of the hire agreement to Westminster showing that liability for parking PCN was accepted by the person hiring. Needless to say, the record of that is not available after all this time.

On 7 February 11 a Charge Certificate was issued which increased the charge to £180. There is no record of that being received.

At some point after that, the date has not been released, Philips Collection Services who were at that time the provider of debt management services to Westminster, tried to trace the vehicle hire firm and despite them having a large yard with dozens of vans in it at the address registered with the DVLA, which would have been supplied to Westminster and also being in the BT phone book, Philips were unable to trace the Limited company concerned and decided not to proceed to register the PCN as a debt at the TEC.

The PCN then went into a deep sleep until 9 January 2015 when a letter arrived from Zinc Credit Management at the address which Philips had been unable to find, the postman could & Mr Mustard didn't have any problem when he popped in there. It threatened the client with having the debt registered at the county court when further fees and costs would be added. The extra fee is £7 so really not that fearsome and there are no costs, so the letter overstates the case (of course). The letter goes on to say there will be a warrant and a bailiff calling.

On 16 January 15 Mr Mustard received the PCN number he needed and this led to him also being given the hire agreement (his client has good records).

On 17 January Mr Mustard emailed Zinc and asked for copies of the PCN, the Notice to Owner, the Charge Certificate, the Order for Recovery and Warrant (in case there was an expired one). He point out the following guidance from the London Councils Code of Practice to which councils in London must have regard i.e. they need to have considered it and have a good reason to not follow it:

On 23 January Zinc emailed asking for payment of £180.

On 24 January Mr Mustard pointed out his 17 January email

On 9 February 2015 Mr Mustard heard from Westminster about their contract with Zinc. there wasn't one but instead they had a pilot to validate PCN write-offs. They had been given 46,980 PCN to look at (Mr Mustard does not know if they were all equally historic). Their method of validation consisted of asking for payment which isn't the same thing and they were working under the misapprehension that the name and address given to them by Westminster was that of a definite debtor. There was nothing in any of their communications which invited a dialogue about who the liable party was. Strangely, there was an existing 4 year debt management contract with the Marston Group Ltd which started in March 13 and which seems to be for exactly this kind of service.

In the absence of a response Mr Mustard chased Zinc on 23 February 2015.

Zinc woke up and replied the same day to say there was an enforceable debt. Er, no there isn't. Here is the law on the matter, a debt is only created when the County Court agrees.

Zinc told Mr Mustard that the last action was the PCN (patent rubbish as if that was the case the sum claimed would only be £120) and that there wasn't a Notice to Owner or an Order for Recovery as the PCN was not appealed within 28 days (complete codswallop).

Mr Mustard was also quick to fire an email back and point out that Zinc

- didn't know enough about PCN procedures

- didn't know what a debt was

- that it was too late to issue a Charge Certificate

- that there must be a Notice to Owner

- if there wasn't a Notice to Owner that the Owner had been denied their legal right to make representations

- that he wanted copies of the PCN, Notice to Owner and Order for Recovery

- that Zinc should ask their client to explain the process.

Just 8 minutes later Mr Mustard received another email which asked why the PCN had not been appealed as it was put on the vehicle and that they didn't have access to the Notice to Owner or Charge Certificate.

A little later Mr Mustard patiently pointed out that his client was not the driver of the vehicle and that there wasn't in any event a legal requirement for a driver to respond to a PCN placed on their vehicle. He reminded Zinc of the documents he wanted to see.

11 minutes later Mr Mustard got this email:

We can certainly request the documents you requested without any issue but I feel that there is concrete evidence (the photographs I have sent to you) to support that this PCN is quite clearly valid and with abit of research I can see it is your duty as an online blogger to try and appeal PCN’s for 3^rd parties regardless of the evidence provided.

I have requested the documents you requested and I hope to see this matter resolved ASAP.

Mr Mustard decided not to bother arguing about his personal motivation or the fact that he tells people to pay sums which are properly due and his alter ego, in his professional capacity as a credit consultant / debt collector, investigates thoroughly any dispute about invoices which are raised, and that the last time he was in front of an adjudicator he was thanked for pointing out something detrimental to his client's case. All that would appear to be impossible to contemplate for a Zinc collector who is hell bent on collecting a 4 year old PCN from a company that is not liable for it.

On 23 February Mr Mustard simply & calmly responded that he needed to see the documents.

On 21 March Mr Mustard reminded Zinc that he was waiting for the documents.

On 21 April Mr Mustard filed a complaint with Westminster about Zinc and adds the Audit Log to the list of documents he wants to see. They ask NSL to respond (it gets worse!).

On 24 April Westminster tell Mr Mustard to go to their system to obtain the response. Mr Mustard tells them to send it as he doesn't respond to fetch commands. Someone sensible replies.

Firstly I would like to apologise, I completely agree with you that you shouldn’t have to go and search for your response, the wording on the auto response needs to be amended to reflect actually what is provided, an email response will always be sent to the customer in the first instance. We then offer an additional service whereby customers can view their enquiry and see the progress of this. This is an optional service provided to the customer who wish to use it. 

A response will be provided to you by email and I will be making changes to the auto response to reflect what will be provided to the customer.

On 4 May Mr Mustard gets his response.

That's funny, the pilot to validate write-offs has transformed itself into a debt recovery contract without there being a contract and with 46,980 PCN to go at possibly involves fees which exceed the EU tender threshold and unless they agreed deprives Marston, who do have the contract, of income.

By not registering those 46,980 at the county court (TEC) Westminster saved themselves £328,860 in court fees. That looks like the true motivation to Mr Mustard. 

On 5 May Mr Mustard asks once again for the statutory PCN documents and the Audit log (Mr Mustard follows the scent like a bloodhound).

On 5 June he reminds NSL that he awaits an answer.

On 11 June he received a reply.

Although I provided a clear case history in my response of 4 May 2015, as a gesture of goodwill, I have attached a print out of the case history and status report relating to the PCN WM64593587 for your information.

We are unable to provide copies of the Notice to Owner or Charge Certificate as these are statutory documents which are not permitted to be copied or reproduced.

I trust this is the information you require.

Mr Mustard hadn't spotted any goodwill up to this point. He knows a lie when he sees one as the Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate have to be reprinted for use at the tribunal (not that this PCN was ever going to get there).

Mr Mustard wrote back the same day asking which law forbids reprinting (he loves asking impossible questions) and pointing out the PCN had not yet been provided and that the client was not the driver (again) and asked for confirmation that an Order for Recovery had not been issued (he knew the answer as the TEC had told him).

On 15 June he received the following information:

- There seems to be some confusion.

- They (NSL on behalf of Westminster) can provide copies but they may differ from the original due to the passage of time.

- They can't provide an exact copy PCN.

- The registered keeper is responsible for the debt.

- Philips had been unable to verify the address so they couldn't progress the case which was placed on hold.

- There are no statutory time limits except for the Notice to Owner.

- There is nothing further they can do.

Mr Mustard then became extremely busy with more pressing matters so left the PCN to age a little further before he had time to write this on 13 October

- Mr Mustard is not confused.

- Has Westminster deleted 2010 document templates?

- Westminster can't prove service of anything on his client.

- To what address were documents sent?

- They can reproduce a PCN for the tribunal.

- The Registered Keeper is not liable if, as in this instance, there is a suitable hire agreement.

- The agent Philips is not up the job.

- How long was the PCN placed on hold for an to what end?

- The Code of Practice of London Councils say they must cancel a PCN which is left untouched for 6 months.

- If the PCN has not been registered at the TEC there is no debt.

On 27 October he received a partial response

- He was given the address of his client to which documents were supposedly sent.

- He was given a perfect looking replica of the PCN (wasn't that impossible?)

- The Notice to Owner has to be sent within 56 days (actually that is guidance, the long stop date is 6 months).

- Westminster don't know why Philips couldn't find the client.

- They can find no reason not to issue an Order for Recovery (i.e. register the PCN as a debt at the county court).

- However, Westminster have decided to exercise their discretion and cancel the PCN.

- They apologise for the inconvenience.

An old person faced with a debt collector calling and threats of court registration might just have rolled over and paid. Mr Mustard isn't so easily persuaded and his clients know to consult him about anything dodgy and this ancient PCN was as dodgy as they come.

Westminster council have been incompetent in not registering these PCN at the TEC as that is the due process, that or write them off instead of putting them into limbo for 3 years.

Have you got a 2010 PCN from Westminster or even one for 2011, 2012 or 2013. Are you being chased by Zinc? Do please send a copy to mrmustard@zoho.com and your PCN will probably meet the same fate, of cancellation.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard